Date: Dec 29, 2012 12:22 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Distinguishability of paths of the Infinite Binary tree???
On 28 Dez., 20:19, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 28, 8:14 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>

> > It not obvious to me, what you call parameter-free. (And you need not

> > explain it, because I am not interested in your interpretation.)

> > Regards, WM

>

> If you are not interested in my interpretation of parameter free

> definability (which is standard by the way) then why you answered to

> my question by saying "Here is a parameter free enumeration...",

Why? Because my enumeration is parameter free. And that's because

there is no parameter involved. You know what a parameter is? You have

found a parameter in my enumeration? No? That is why I call my

enumeration parameter free.

> By the way you said it is not obvious to you what I meant by parameter

> free definable, while this is just the basics of definability of sets

> and it is WELL known,

among a gang of big mouths like you?

It was expected from one who aims to refute Cantor

> to be more informed. It is expected from one who say that THOUSANDS of

> mathematicians for a whole of a century were acting fools and

> spreading nonsense to be someone who is well informed on such issues,

> but Since you are obviously ignorant why go discuss matters as if you

> are well informed?

In order to refute Cantor one need not study nonsense like uncountable

languages or parametric definitions without a parameter.

> I think it is obvious now who is the acting fool

> and spreading nonsense.

Of course, but you will hardly recognize it.

Regards, WM